Conflicts of Interest: CNN adjusts ethics policy around Crossfire

9/27/13 10:18 AM EDT

Yesterday we reported that Crossfire host Newt Gingrich may have broken ethical rules for conflicts of interest set forth by CNN's EVP of standards and practices Rick Davis.

Today, those rules appear to have changed. In a statement to Media Matters, Davis clarifies the network's new ethics policy for disclosing potential conflicts of interest:

We are clarifying the policy and making it clear Newt Gingrich is not in violation. The policy: If a Crossfire co-host has made a financial contribution to a politician who appears on the program or is the focus of the program, disclosure is not required during the show since the co-host's political support is obvious by his or her point of view expressed on the program."

This statement is quite the departure from an earlier interview Davis held with Media Matters ahead of Crossfire's launch earlier this month.

"If Newt is helping fund a candidate and that candidate's on the show, or being discussed on the show, of course he'll disclose that," Davis said at the time. "Disclosure is important when it's relevant."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been a guest on "Crossfire" and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has been a topic on the show. Mother Jones reports that Gingrich's PAC has donated to both Senators recently, and that Gingrich didn't make note of the donations in either episode.

Gingrich is not the only potential conflict of interest on Crossfire. Co-host Stephanie Cutter has been slammed recently for continuing to advise the White House while in her role on Crossfire.

UPDATE (1:20 p.m.): A former CNN insider emails:

CNN's decision to change the rules to suit Newt Gingrich violates every code of journalistic ethics -- and every past practice on Crossfire. Pat Buchanan had to leave the show when he made noises about running for office. Bill Press had to resign his position as State Democratic Chair of California. All on-air talent was banned from making any political contributions or endorsing candidates. Bad decision.

UPDATE (1:50 p.m.): Another former CNN insider emails:

Unfortunate for viewers. Left and right are one thing, but money is another. Setting aside changing the policy for the show (because the hosts aren't straight journos) I think it's an interesting piece of information for someone watching the show to know.

The network’s bellyflop on “Crossfire” is a capitulation to modern Washington, a concession that it can’t put together a debate program with high-profile Beltway types who aren’t somehow conflicted on any big issue that comes before the public. The network faced a choice between:

1) Issuing nonstop disclosures that would convince viewers of the show’s ethical wobbliness and hand media critics a stream of drip-drip-drip disclosure stories; or

2) Issuing a one-time, absurd, anomalous and unethical “clarification” to internal ethics rules and sustaining one round of bad press.